Concurrent radiotherapy with oral fluoropyrimidine versus gemcitabine in locally advanced pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

局部晚期胰腺癌同步放疗联合口服氟尿嘧啶与吉西他滨治疗的疗效比较:系统评价和荟萃分析

阅读:1

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Gemcitabine (GEM) is the most widely utilized systemic agent in combination with radiation therapy (RT) for treating locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) in the concurrent setting. Despite recent interest in using two novel oral fluoropyrimidines (FUs), capecitabine and S-1, in this setting, there is a lack of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to support this approach. METHODS: Trials published between 1994 and 2014 were identified by an electronic search of public databases (Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library). All prospective studies were independently identified by two authors for inclusion. Demographic data, treatment response, objective response rate (ORR), progression-free and overall survival (PFS and OS, respectively), and toxicities were extracted and analyzed using comprehensive meta-analysis software (version 2.0). RESULTS: Twenty-three cohorts with 843 patients were included: 497 patients were treated with GEM and 346 patients were treated with oral FU. Pooled OS was significantly higher at 1 and 2 years for S-1 plus RT than for GEM plus RT (relative risk [RR] 1.27; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.65; P=0.03; and RR 1.75; 95% CI, 1.18-2.60, P=0.002, respectively), while 1-year PFS and ORR were not significantly different between S-1 and GEM-based chemoradiotherapy (P=0.37 and P=0.06, respectively). Additionally, comparable efficacy was found between capecitabine and GEM-based chemoradiotherapy in terms of OS, PFS, and ORR. As for grade 3 and 4 acute toxicity, oral FU plus RT significantly reduced the risk of developing hematologic toxicities, nausea, and vomiting when compared to GEM plus RT (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Oral FU plus RT may be a safe and feasible regimen for patients with LAPC, with similar efficacy and low rate of toxicities compared with GEM plus RT. Our findings support the need to compare S-1 with GEM in the concurrent setting in large prospective RCTs due to its potential survival benefits.

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。